Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)
will also hear from president obama, who signed the deficit reduction measure into law, part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. first, senate majority leader harry reid and republican majority leader mitch mcconnell will talk on the senate floor about the january fiscal deadline. >> since our country voted to return president obama to the white house, i have spoken often about compromise. i remain optimistic that, when it comes to our economy, when it comes to protecting middle-class families from a whopping tax hike, republicans and democrats will be able to find common ground. president dwight eisenhower, a republican, once said, "people talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. there have to be compromises. the middle of the road is all usable space." so said white house and higher. -- dwight eisenhower. too often, we face off, not realizing that the solution rests somewhere in the middle. i remind everyone of one fact. this congress is one vote away from avoiding a fiscal cliff for middle-class families and small businesses. we can solve the greatest econo
that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat
back to work, a deal with our deficit, and we will not have economic security for the future. in order to create jobs and fiske our economy, we have to invest in energy production and domestic manufacturing capacity. they are the engines of economic growth for us in the future. we have to go back to being the country that builds things, rather than the one that just consumes goods that have been produced overseas. with that in mind, i have championed the legislation to create a national infrastructure bank. according to a recent report, failing to invest in our nation 's infrastructure could cost the united states $129 billion a year and over the next 10 years. it reads, u.s. businesses added $430 billion in transportation costs. u.s. exports will fall. meanwhile, we are falling behind in the global economy. china invests 9% of their gross domestic product in infrastructure. india, 5% and rising. in america, we spend less than 2% of gdp on infrastructure. it is a concept with broad and bipartisan support. it could help close the gaps. do something about bringing tele-communications acr
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
will be speaking about the so-called fiscal cliff and that is a reduction -- and deficit reduction. we will have that live here on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern. over at the white house today, president obama is meeting with small business owners. at 12:30, jay carney will hold a press briefing and take questions from reporters. this afternoon, the president and vice president will meet with the mexican president who takes office december 1. the press briefing today at 12:30. on capitol hill, the house of representatives returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on their agenda this afternoon five bills including a measure requiring the department of a homeland security to report on security. later this week, a student visa program. also this week, the democratic leadership elections. that will be coming up later this week. live coverage of the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a number of senators have been meeting with u.n. ambassador susan rice in the wake of her comments following the attack on the benghazi consulate. just wrapping up is a brief news conference and statement with senators. here is a look.
when people first signed that pledge, the federal budget deficit was $220 billion. this year, $1.1 trillion, how can you say nothing has changed? >> lots have changed. bush focused not on spending. the pledge only does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level, at the national level. you haven't had a republican vote for income tax since 1990 when bush threw away his presidency. 1993 tax increase, only on democratic votes. then no tax increases until 2009 when obama came in and raised taxes with obamacare. >> isn't this -- you are having republican is take a difficult pledge to cut taxes, isn't that like a quarterback saying they like taxes? >> it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen it. you don't want to change it because it is a simple guardrail. it doesn't solve the world's problems, it says no net tax increase. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed to it? >> in writing when the person signs it as long as you are a congressman or senator. >> you are signing this for life? >> unles
, the deficit reduction first. you have to pay the bills. in your personal and public life -- you want to have a prescription drug benefits under medicare, that is great, you have to pay for it. you want two wars? you have to pay for them, too. we should understand something about the republican party over the last and years. it has been a big spending party -- it just does not want to pay for any of the spending. a reset of traditional conservatism requires that we be reality-based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of profligacy now require increased revenue. the notion that we have hundreds of members of congress bound by a pledge to grover norquist as opposed to their oath of office to the constitution -- [applause] is unsettling. we should understand, there is not symmetry between the parties on this question. there is no grover norquist equivalent in the democratic party on this question. it is encouraging to hear speaker boehner and republicans talk about the need to increase revenues. my personal opinion, which is why i am a republican in part, a 40% f
competitor again? >> so much of the federal deficit does come from ticket demographic problem, which is that many baby boomers are going to be retiring -- the fact -- come from a demographic problem, which is that many baby boomers be retiring. >> we are maintaining the position of no cuts, because there's not any conversation happening in this capital area yet about revenue. as a health care union, we know that there can be improvements in the delivery of medicare. the demographic problem in this country in our minds has to be solved by creating good jobs and getting the economy growing from people spending again because i have enough money in their pockets to generate the kind of revenue that will allow for the medicare system to be solvent through the next generation. >> would you go along with passed medicare cuts of president obama has proposed in past budgets, and seek to cut the rate of growth? >> our current position is that there is no reason to entertain any question like that, because there is no indication that we're going to break on revenue. it is important to maintain
. >> my friend makes a good point. because we have an incredible plan to get on top of debt and deficit, to show how we will pay our way in the world we have record low interest rates. low interest rates described by the shatter chancellor as a key test of economic credibility. >> ed miller band? >> can i start by joining the prime minister in paying tribute to walter berry of first battalion richmond of scotland. he should yet most courage and bravery and all our thoughts and condolences are for his family and fries. can also express my deep or about loss of life in israel and gaza in recent days including the latest polling terrorist attack on a bus in tel aviv. there's widespread support on all sides of the house for an immediate and durable cease-fire ing agreed in israel and gaza. will the prime minister set out in his view their main barriers tohe cease-fire agreement now being reached? >> i agree with right hon. gentleman about the appalling news this morning about the terrorist attack on a bus in tel leave and also express our deep concern at the intolerable situation in souther
. it is still about three times the average deficit under bush. let us go back to the clinton tax era. eileen anywhere between republican and libertarian. up -- yes i am not. i lean anywhere between republican and a libertarian. host: what do you make of republicans up on capitol hill -- to sort of a back off the tax pledge that he took when he ran for senate, saying he would not raise taxes. caller: if we are going to raise taxes my important thing is raising them on everybody. because if they try to strike a compromise where only the rich get taxed, then it gets more progressive. it is not a point to help the budget. we are right to raise taxes, raise them all the way down to where clinton had them. host: senators lindsey gramm represented peter king, talking publicly abandoning the pledge of democrats will talk seriously about entitlement reforms. rest in peace, grover norquist? there are not enough republican tax hikes -- republicans to hike taxes for obama. the left is doing its best to make tax hikes appear to be a foregone conclusion. that is their take on tax hikes. eddie, on our line
rate will necessarily go up. we talk about debt and deficit in this chamber, if we remember less than 12 years ago, 12 years ago we hit a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. meaning that we were taking in $258 billion more in each year than we were spending. how was that possible? it was made possible by having created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous eight years. . what was the policy then? the policy was to invest in the american economy, in the american people, in education, in scientific research, and infrastructure. so i think the lessons from our most recent past are very instructive today as to what we should be doing in washington to promote growth. the gentleman from california spoke of a plan i was working on, that's a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding the roads and bridges of america. that plan, advanced by the new america foundation, would create 27 million private sector jobs in five years. the first year alone, over five million jobs which would reduce the current employment rate from where it is today to 6.4% and in the second year, 5.2%. now public in
it into the unified budget to mass of the overall deficit. the trust fund will run -- to mask the overall deficit. it was a nice tax breaks for low income seniors. that was stealing from that trust fund. we call it the social security fund. there is no trust in my estimation. host: this is from the huffy to post a business section. earlier this week-- huffington post business section. older americans are in the cross hairs. when congress returns for a lame-duck session, stocks will keep up -- talks will heat up and there may be reinvigorated discussions on a grand bargain. the last time that happens, president obama considered a proposal favored by republicans to extend the eligibility for medicare to 67. as a guy who turned 65, your thoughts about extending the eligibility for medicaid to 67. guest: if you are younger, you are not thinking about it. i think it would be prudent to do that for the health of the country in the future of the people. obviously, if you are at or near 65, you cannot do it. the thing i wonder is, as part of this whole situation, why is there no effort to really, really
a long-term deficit reduction deal. grover norquist was on cnn on friday responding to senator chambliss' comments. let's listen to what grover norquist had to say. [video clip] >> the commitment he made to the people of georgia was not to me. it was a commitment to the people of georgia that he would go to washington to reduce government spending and to reform government and not raise taxes. if he wants to change his mind and become a tax increaser so we don't have to reform government, need to have that conversation with the people of georgia. he talks about my plan to increase debt, the only plan i think i supported is the paul ryan deal, which reduces the deficit, pays down the debt, does not raise taxes, and it is a written plan that senator chambliss actually voted for. so i think they caught him on a tv station and he said something scraps that did not make sense. >> have you thought about changing the pledged in any way? >> again, i cannot change the pledge, because t it is,o me. it is not like people are promising this to me. >> it was your group. everybody associates the pledge
, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, a requirement to do so. the foundation of national power is ultimately economic. in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundational. i think in the u.s. we have both an opportunity and requirement to get our house in order. i believe what hundreds of tatars and 435 members of the house will step up -- what 100 senators and 435 members of the house will step up. >> so we have america under control because of the amount of treasuries? >> [indiscernible] our position to the nine states is very, very decisive to strengthen our relationship. there is no intention for us to use this economic relationship and a different context. we are very satisfied. that's all. >> let me open up to the floor. with four microphones around the room. fast.going to go i will call on people whose names i don't know. but that is josh rogan from "the cable." >> thank you for your time today. i
that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. and i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something that we didn't do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiation. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. and that's why we take the position and believe strongly that increasing marginal rates is income tax rates is not the way to produce growth and to put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of this administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i'm told that mr. bowles, as some of us will meet with him later today, had said earlier this morning that it's been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements, on medicare and medicaid. this
students have contributed $4.50 billion out of their pockets toward deficit reduction. we have had things squeezing us at different levels. we are facing the biggest threat from what is called a sequester, the fiscal cliff. one part of the fiscal cliff arc across the board -- across the board -- are across-the-board spending cuts. they will be cutting housing and food safety and the entire range of domestic programs. for education, that will be head start, which is in the department of health and human services. there will be a $4.80 billion cut, the largest education cut in the history of the country. that will move us that courts whether the goal is -- move us backwards. our biggest challenge in the short-term is to work together with groups like the urban league and the national council of la raza to come up with a balanced approach to deficit reduction and ask people who can pay a little bit more to do so without balancing the budget on the backs of children and students and working people and low income people. a couple of quick things i want to say. we are also facing increasing enr
this as a good step in the right direction. every cent down payment in the deficit and a huge change in the culture of spending. you are spending less money on this this year than last year. we have a long ways to go. we really do believe that the value of this republican majority will change this culture. we had the gephardt rule. no one would have to be seen voting for the budget resolution. we would do this in plain sight. >> the debate was long and it was not easy. and they have watched or wondered why congress to get the job done. this was a bipartisan compromise, it was not the right wing cut, and whatever it is over there. that was not a bipartisan and this is nothing that we could agree to in the short-term. it was really a disaster for america. this agreement cuts the deficit by $1 trillion. we look forward to the work on the committee to make sure that the millionaires and billionaires and people with those yachts will have tax benefits, but that is in the mix of thinking what is going on. mr. schumer will talk about this in a moment with the jobs agenda that we have. we wi
is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked in 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp eventually stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the head winds that are already holding back the economic recovery
this -- that is working, the employee does is retired, and his benefits. which would cut down the deficit, cut down just about everything you could think of perry taxes in half, property taxes would be cut. you would have a whole new system. guest: there are certainly a whole range of proposals like this on the table, to shift money around, especially money that has not been spent in the last decade on the wars. there are a whole range of things that can be done. the current situation, running annual deficits in the neighborhood of $1 trillion, it is quite clear there is going to have to be a whole range of things that is going to have to be done to get the whole -- the number down to something more palatable. host: pensacola, florida, republican. go ahead, laura perry -- laura. caller: first of all, if $1.20 trillion, right, it is over 10 years. is that a real cut or is it a cut in the projected increase? guest: it is a cut in the baseline, so the projected increase. a very good point. in one year, 2009, we increased spending by almost $1 trillion. it was not just a one-time shot. so, we can't cut it i
the boring deficit by paying tax on their profits but some multinationals appeared to be paying very low amounts, like starbucks and anderson. i wonder if the prime minister could tell the house whether he thinks the tax code needs investigating. >> it does need investigating. they're looking as hard as they can at what can be done. there are some things one can do nationally and that is where examining but because we live in a competitive global economy where companies can move capital around and move their headquarters and move money around you need greater international agreement. we have an important international agreement with switzerland which is going to recover billions of pounds in tax for our country but we need to work hard and that is where the g-8 can help so we can get a fair share of tax from companies given that britain is doing its part to cover corporation tax to the most competitive in world. >> the prime minister rightly created the wonderful work of the london emergency service--could he share with me concerns of the london public to see the number that is threatene
are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we worked on budgets and the defense department. i do not believe we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. we are at the pentagon is implementing a strategy that we put together in order to deal with the fiscal challenge we are presented. congress handed us $487 billion to reduce the deficit -- the defense budgets over 10 years. my approach was to say, wait a minute. we are not just going to cut across the board. we are not just going to hollow out the force as we have done in the past. every time we have come out of the war, whether it was korea, vietnam, the cold war, we cut the budget across the board, and we hollowed out the force. we are not going to repeat that mistake, so for that reason, i said to my service chiefs, chairman of the joint chiefs, we have got to sit down and develop a strategy for the future that will provide the defense force for the 21st centu
government costs. so as we deal with all of the issues of the debt and deficit, i want to make sure that everybody's keeping her and children like her and her mother and her father and her family in mind and making cuts that really make sense and avoiding cuts that absolutely make no sense, that don't save money, and certainly don't make our country any better. the investments that we make help children remain healthy, achieve success in school, and become productive members of society. so while we all agree we want to tackle our fiscal challenges, we want to make sure that we take the kind of balanced and sensible approach that reduces our deficit, puts our fiscal house in order, but protects the health of women and children and families. so we should all agree, both sides of the aisle, that while we want to increase revenue to tackle our budget deficits, and ask those who can afford to pay wealthier individuals, and profitable corporations to pay their fair share, so that we don't ask children and families to bear the burden. this little girl certainly had nothing to do with creat
is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp aventurine stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed -- and eventually stabilize or declined, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the he
budget is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit which peaked at about 10% of gdp in 2009 and now is 7% of gdp is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. the cbo projects that under a plausible set of assumptions, the budget deficit would still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned with potential by then. moreover, under the cbo projection, could deficit and raise your federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never actually come to pass because the willingness of plunder to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by irresponsible fiscal plans and actions. host: that was ben bernanke at the economic club of new york yesterday. looking for your confidence in the u.s. economy. already getting some comments on facebook -- abroad we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and calls. we start with joseph from maryland on the democratic line. thanks for joining us. caller: good morni
and the deficit. mr. carney says, quote, the american people matter in stopping the fiscal cliff and budget cuts that will take effect in january if congress doesn't act. >> ok. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the james s. brady white house briefing room, i believe we have some visitor fres this united arab emirate here, i want to welcome you and thank you for being here. i have just a couple of thins i want to announce at the top, some of which you know about, others you may not. today, as enge you know they can president is meeting with small business owners -- let me back up. it is not happening right now. i believe it happens -- 2:30 i'm reliably informed. he'll be meeting with small business owners as part of discussing with them the importance of extending tax cuts for the middle class or 98% of american taxpayers because of the impact that raising taxes on 98% would have on businesses around the country. he will also discuss with them the measures that he has put forward to assist small businesses, including hiring tax credits and the like, that will help the engine of ou
responsibilities. we are in a period where the budget situation in this country, a huge deficit we are facing, the debt confronting this country are limited resources and will continue to limit the resources. i did not believe we worked on budgets and the defense department. i do not believe we have to choose between national security and fiscal security. we are at the pentagon is implementing a strategy that we put together in order to deal with the fiscal challenge we are presented. congress handed us $487 billion to reduce the deficit -- the defense budgets over 10 years. my approach was to say, wait a minute. we are not just going to cut across the board. we are not just going to hollow out the force as we have done in the past. every time we have come out of the war, whether it was korea, vietnam, the cold war, we cut the budget across the board, and we hollowed out the force. we are not going to repeat that mistake, so for that reason, i said to my service chiefs, chairman of the joint chiefs, we have got to sit down and develop a strategy for the future that will provide the defense fo
substantive proposal by an elected official that actually achieves the target of $4 trillion in deficit reductions in a balanced way. >> is there a consensus around that? is there consensus among all parties that $4 trillion is the goal docks "that is the president's goal talking about the longer-term issues -- is that the goal? >> that is the president will talking about the fiscal cliff challenges. he has described that going backed to the spring and summer 2011 as a big deal. it would help put us on a sustainable path that helped create the kind of ratio of deficit to gdp that alan krueger and others have been an discussing. that is his goal. when we talk about the longer- term deficit reduction targets, the near term target, one that could be resolved tomorrow if the house so desired, would be to pass the extension of the middle class tax cuts which would remove a substantial portion of the fiscal cliff right away and would give certainty to consumers and retailers right away. the president, as he has repeatedly, urges the house to do that. we should not hold the middle class hostag
care system dropped from 64% to 55%. to go over to the budget, substantially reduce the budget deficit. 42% thought the obama administration would be able to do that in 2008. avoid raising taxes. control illegal immigration. heal political divisions in this country. 54% thought so in 2008. bob in north carolina on are democrats' line. you are up next. caller: i just think it is going to be better coming up this next time because i believe obama it did need a second chance. i voted for him. i am a native american and i lived on a cherokee indian reservation. we have to balance our budget. our leaders serve four years just like the president does. we make our budget work. if we don't have the money, we don't do it. that is all i got to tell you. host: jacqueline pata is going to be on later in this program. how would you describe the conditions where you live? caller: we have a heritage casino down here and it does a lot for us. we send all of our kids to college. we pay for it all. they can go to college anywhere in the united states. host: indian gaming has helped urination? caller: ve
deficit with the goals set up plus the one. $6 trillion tax increase or five. particularly since the spending cuts have been agreed to buy none of the democrats. we do know obama included -- he said nice things about simpson- bowles. there are some spending restraints. not a single one of those ideas was put into obama's budget, not one. we know he is not for any of that. when republicans offered to put them into subsequent savings from the budget control act, the democrats all objected. they are officially against every saving -- every saving discussed in simpson-bowles. so, when they spent nine months discussing simpson-bowles, a $5 trillion tax increase and hint at tax reform and spending reform, and when they finally went into the room to see what they came up with, they did not have legislative language which it of taken two weeks and then -- done by staffers. a pilot typewritten -- pile of typewritten pages that the says "all work and no play makes jack a bellboy" if you watch the movie. nothing in nine months. it is not real. people say this imaginary agreement that is not
to energy independence. that is a $200 billion deficit right now. it is a bridge to renewable energy. if we can move to gas, we will get tremendous benefits in terms of a cleaner energy on a way to a renewable energy future. if we could get those things done, this to be transformational for our economy, but we cannot act on these things even though there is a lot of bipartisan agreement. >> let me just try to poke holes in this. if we rolled back time to just before the financial crisis. look at the u.s.. doug holtz-eakin was out there bitching about that already. it's much worse today. if you look at debt in a different way. if you look at private-sector debt -- just forget government debt. private-sector debt was 160% of gdp. despite the myths of the leveraging, today we are back in that same crisis mode. you also have structural corruption and between regulators, financial institutions and other players in the economy and you have a private sector events leading to a government response. my question is why is it never on this list to get the private sector robber control? there is nothin
we can solve our long-term debt and deficit problem is to fix the unsustainable growth rates of our very popular entitlement programs. the president has indicated an openness to that and now's the time to actually do it. and i hope we can put all this divisiveness behind us and build the confidence and relationships on a bipartisan basis, which would help us get there here at the end of the year. >> the president and leader reid said social security should be off the table. what's your reaction to that? >> all of the entitlements need to be discussed, because they all to one degree or another are on an unsustainable path. medicare is in more immediate danger. we want to save these programs and i understand the dilemma that the president and the majority leader have. they don't want to change anything. they think any commitment made by the federal government on any program at any time ought to be there forever. well, times change. and until we make sure these popular entitlement programs fit the demographics of the changing america, we can't save them. we all know that. it's simple m
. as a clinician that these kids and families and our clinics in seeing the major education deficit on the fields today in all sports frankly, but also seeing the outcomes. some of the things that raise talking about in terms of understanding forces is really important and we just completed some work in developing measures they are using so we can understand their cognitive symptom kinds of effects of these to kids. i think that's very, very important outcome to what we need to link up with the games. from the perspective -- actually was at the aspen institute this summer, where u.s. nabobs question about, should we be eliminating football -- tackling a football before the age of 14. at that point i couldn't speak, although we did speak that night. one of the things i said as we've got to change things. in its current form of credit problem. although the age limit is something that has to be further studied here it is going to finish my comments with research, but maybe starts with research in trying to understand what evidence do we have. one of the things that is hopeful that i've seen in sport
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37 (some duplicates have been removed)